♪ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> good morning, and welcome to "washington journal." the house and senate are in this afternoon, and president obama travels to reno, nevada where he will speak at a national convention at the dfw. he will hit campaign events in california later today. a piece in the "new york times" says wall street is too big to regulate. we would like to hear what you think. should banks of america be nationalized? here are the numbers to call --

you can also find us online. send us a tweet. or e-mail us -- "the new york times" has an piece today that says -- we would like to hear what you think about that. let's continue reading.

some economists had a surprisingly different take it comes to the big fish in the economic pond. some found only way to preserve competition was to nationalize. this notion seems counterintuitive. this is a question a lot of newspapers, economists, and politicians asked back in 2009 when the economic crisis hit. now we're revisiting it, especially in the wake of the libor scandal in the uk. "forbes."e picece from

when we look at the question of nationalization and what it means, what about to the archives and see what the questions were from 2008. in this article looks at what it means. and it means giving the government the power to control banks. this could mean taking control of the public shares to the power to pick and install new leadership at the bank.

let's go back to the o"new york times" op ed piece that says basically of the barclays interest-rate scandal, the hsbc money laundering and the epic blunders at j.p. morgan case, at this point, four years after wall street, our banks to bid? o big?

let's hear what you have to say. duracell is an independent calller. caller: good morning. i believe the banks should be nationalized. the acronym could be more like london in the criminal thinking or organization. i am really concerned about that i have a family overseas, and i know when it comes to putting money together and deposits, and we have large amounts tracing back to make sure the money is clean money, my concern now with jamie dimon have aamond and diamon

lot in common. i really think we need to look at the money. it is not fair for poor, working-class people to be subject to bank fees when we have international criminals dealing with money issues. unless we get this straight, i do not think anyone will be very concerned about other rates and other regulations. a 1 percent signed agenda to take over the masses with a 99 percent signed the worked diligently, go to school buying mcdonald's or fast-food jobs to make their lives and work.

something has to really be done. jay haset's hear what to say. caller: please, please do not make that mistake. you know the government never does anything right. you apply for a green card and give you a two-year green card. then it has to be renewed. it takes six months to a year before you receive your new one in the mail. can you imagine that? give the opportunity to the government to take over the banks would be the worst thing would ever make. host: jay says don't nationalize the banks. what do they? give us a call. here is what is coming into us

on facebook. william says no, the banks should not be nationalized but need to be regulated more than they are now. david says of any organization should be regulated, it should be the banking institutions. also is absolutely not. he says i am not sure why people think nationalizing everything is such a great idea. why people put their trust in large entities is beyond me. we have a poll on facebook where you can weigh in. so far the trend is to say no, the bank should not be nationalized. we have about 50 people waiting in so far. columbia, south carolina, jim is the next calller. caller: good morning. it was the government itself that aided the collapse of the

financial institutions. it was the government that forced them to make loans that were not smart. and the whole democratic mantra that everyone should own a house, be able to buy it whether or not the loans were smart or fair or whether they could pay it back. the government made or enforced the banks propensity to loan to pick up the economy. this is something the bank should not run. they should just reenact class people in separate. just separate banking from investing, and then you will not have to bail them out again, because you will not be doing these raids. -- these charades. j.p. morgan proved government cannot do this. they need to go back to the simple borrowing and depository

lending kind of operation. so government cannot run this. government should not run it. they should go back to fair, simple policies of 20% down on a house and good, solid loans and not allow banks to get in these sure raids. -- these charades. they got what they wanted and the government helped to enforce this mess to begin with. host: u.s. banks should not be nationalized, but they should be broken up into a manageable size. nationalization has its own standard. of our next calller joins us from baltimore. james on the independent line. caller: good morning. i just cannot get over the last calller, i think his name was james also.

i could not agree more with anybody. i am glad someone is making a little bit of sense. i am 67-years-old. i have social security, a small income. that is ok with me. what is very hard and almost impossible for me to comprehend or understand, why these rich people, rich folks, it seems like they want to drive me to the ground and take my last penny out of my arthritic hands and put it in their children's mouths. it is absolutely criminal insane what the american people are letting the politicians and the people with the big money due to them. i wish they would wake up. they do not know their history. host: cathy tweets, no, the

bank should not be nationalize, but very tightly regulated. sheridan, wyoming. caller: hello, i agree with the gentleman -- i agree with the last gentleman in the sense that he agreed with the gentleman before him, if that makes sense. i think last people should be reinstated like the one gentleman said, because once they took that out, it seemed like everything started to go down hill. that should be reinstated, and i do not think the banks should be nationalized. that is more a form of socialism. and they should be let go to bankruptcy and dealt with with the market's, and that is a lot of the problem.

the government getting involved in car companies and all kinds of things they should not have their hands in. this got us into a big mess. host: we have the second anniversary of dodd-frank over the weekend. do you think that has had an effect? caller: it may have been a slight help, but i think it has put in a lot of regulations that could be a lot more trouble than they're worth in the end. like they say, the unintended consequences tend to crop up when people do not want them to, but they did not bring about the unintended consequences of things. i guess i will wait and see on that. we know glass the coleworts. -- we know that glass-stegall

worked. all the sudden they pull it and things started looking dicey. so rising just reinstate that and do not nationalize banks. basically get government out of the private sector. host: we will look at the background of that in just a little bit, but first this week. no, that will create more big government. they cannot create their own big government. hostwe were inspired to ask wher you think bang should be nationalized because -- banks should be nationalized because of this op ed piece.

what do you think about this? was played, nebraska. rabin, good morning. plains, neb. caller: they back up oil and coal.

tree-lined and stuff. they have made it bigger bite into it-trust laws. host: coast of mesa, california. john. caller: i am not sure what nationalization would involve, but i know we would not have been in this mess if they have not gambled with their own money. that is what should be regulated. gambling should be outlawed. they should not be able to come up with the products where they seek to gain from their profits from us. that is the simple way to put it, they have been gambling with it. every time there is a regulation there is a putsch back -- push back and they seem to come back

on top. i am not sure what nationalization would look like, but if there were actually able to enforce regulations, perhaps we could have more positive outcome from this. thank you for listening. and host: charleses why nationalize, divide them up. stegall.ok at glass- this is from "the new york times." it was originally part of the new deal program and became a permanent measure in 1945. we will learn more about the

history of that. the question is whether u.s. banks should be nationalized. capitol heights, md.. independent calller. caller: i think it is time we talk about the federal reserve, because it is the federal reserve for all of the problems stem from here that the fed reserve act was signed in 1913. the federal reserve did not renew the charter to print money. when they are in control of putting money back in the hands of the american people, in congress. right now the federal reserve, the u.s. government borrowed money from the federal reserve and a charge them interest on the money. when you print your own money,

you do not have an interest rate. you start to print money without an interest rate. that is why the lincoln and the greenback -- that is what that was about. when you pay income tax, it goes to pay interest. host: 10 i asked you a question? are you a supporter of congressman ron paul's ideas about the federal reserve? he will be on the program tomorrow morning. you might be interested on seeing him on "washington journal" at 8:30. bill says bank failures reached 38 so far this year. we're talking about glass0-

steagull. that is what people have been bringing up this morning. taking a look at a couple of other news stories in just a moment. first, diana from texas. caller: i did not believe the bank should be nationalized, but i believe it is time for the banks to quit using our money.

they have been doing so for years. this is doing as no good, because look of auto companies we own. they turned right around and once they made some money, they gave their employees huge amounts of money just for working there. when i worked a job, i got paid my hourly salary, not an extra amount just because the government owned the company. host: think you for sharing your comments. let's look at "the denver post." midnight massacre, a day of mourning. talks about what has been happening in colorado in the wake of the shooting early friday morning. here is the president --

commentsk of the president obama made yesterday after visiting with families who lost loved ones. >> scripture says he will wipe away every tear from their eyes , and death shall be no more, neither shall there be morning, nor crying, nor pain anymore for the former things have passed away. when you have an opportunity to visit with families to a lost loved ones, as i described to them, i come to them not so much as president as i do a father and husband. i think that the reason stories like this have such an impact on us is because we can all understand what it would be to have someone that we loved take it from us and this passion.

what would be like and how would impact us. i had a chance to visit with each family, and most of the conversation was filled with memory. it was an opportunity for families to describe how wonderful their brother or their son or daughter was and the lives that they had touched and the dreams that they held for the future. i confess to them that words are always inadequate in these kinds of situations, but that my main task was to serve as representative of the entire country and let them know we are thinking about them at this moment, and will continue to think about them each and every day, and that the awareness that

not only all of america but much of the world is thinking about them might serve as some comfort. host: president obama speaking in colorado yesterday. here is the headline. president obama visits the victims, taking on the mantle of healer-in-chief. he flew to colorado on sunday for the second time in less than a month. president obama did not talk politics on either visit. the stories in the newspapers are asking questions about why this happened. here is a headline in the "usa today." couple of other stories in the news today. "the wall street journal" as

this piece -- here is a graphic looking at which of these are headaches according to company said it interviewed. business tax breaks often proved to be more trouble than they're worth because of the complexity. some examples. the deduction for energy- efficient buildings requires elaborate computer modeling in meeting tough standards, but could save $200 million. a credit for small business health coverage, but it is tough because of multiple copulations of work force and wages.

other tax deductions are credit -- work opportunity tax credit, a credit for increasing research and the deduction for domestic production. that one has a price tag of $12.3 billion. the former press secretary to george w. bush has an op ed piece in "the wall street journal." george w. bush writes himself -- extending the fight beyond aids. 20,000 delegates are gathering in washington for the 2012 international aids conference. gains in aids treatment are remarkable and are continuing. he says there is more to be done in places like africa. other diseases must also be dealt with. he says of his heart wrenching to save a woman from aids only to watch her die from other

diseases. the question for you this morning is whether or not you think u.s. banks should be nationalized inspired to ask this by an office in the new york times today. it says wall street is too big to regulate. caller: thank you for taking my call. and the bank should not be nationalized, however, the federal reserve needs to be ended, and factional reserve lending should be ended. the bank should only lend money that they have, and that would actually solve the problem. the creation of money should go back through congress to create the money supply, and that would end a lot of the problems. right now all of the money is interest-bearing debt, and with the interest on the debt, taxes

have to be raised, and it causes a lot of problems the banks should not be nationalized, but the creation of money should be sent back to congress. separate them. individual writesvidual -- jackie casinich writes 00 --

as i mentioned, he will be our guest tomorrow on "washington journal." another story in "usa today." mitt romney top obama fund- raising totals in june according to "this is according to d.

"washington times. -- this is according to "the washington times." this one is about president obama. it says his campaign burn rate worries some democrats. host: our question for you this morning is whether you think u.s. banks should be nationalized. georgia, a republican. caller: thank you for taking my call. it's was the government that got us in this problem to start with

periods -- to start with. "the new york times." -- you cannot get the truth from "the new york times." it was the government that had this problem to start with. dodd frank was a big leader in this. they pushed the banks in making these the subprime loans. that is really what happens. host: what do you think about breaking up the banks and keeping them from getting too big? caller: well.

no. just let the market go. if they fail, let them go bankrupt. let the market take care of itself. host: are you worried about investors in the bank losing out? are people who have money held by the bank if the bank fails? caller: no. let them take the chances. host: ok. thank you for your call. let's go to robert to is a democrat in new york, new york. caller: good morning. i think the banks should be nationalized. as a matter of fact, it was recommended for franklin roosevelt as far back as 1940 to. -- 1942. with the repeal, it makes it inevitable. they are investing in the stock

market instead of making loans to people and instead of making loans to small businesses, which is really a function that banks should have done under the glass-steagall act. it should be a matter of time before the banks are nationalized, of course. the banks, or as an independent agency, so it should not be so politically involved. some thought should be given. it is kind of interesting. while the government did own the stock, it never got involved in the management of it. they made a subway cars for places like here in a new york. the fact they owned the stock does not necessarily mean there were involved in the management, which they were not. that is what i have to say. host: tweets in.

here are some comments coming into us on facebook. host: you can join the

conversation on facebook by looking for c-span. we have a poll there to ask you what you think about whether banks should be nationalized. so far, it is trendy no. -- it is trending, "no." are you with us? caller: robert. i am an independent. i wanted to remind the public that seven times in our national history, whenever we have allowed as the anchors to mislead the politicians into getting things that they wanted, it has caused catastrophic

results in the world. in the 1830's under jackson, under lincoln, under grant. from the time that grant was president, we had these modern companies that would take over because we missed that european economies. of the same thing during the 1920's. the national socialism and germany. the great depression as of the 1890's. any time these guys can trick the politicians and to do with their want to do, they ruin the economy everywhere. so, i think we need to be reminded that there has to be some controls. under franklin roosevelt, of times one came up --

host: are you talking about glass-steagall? caller: no. they came up with the antitrust rules that preserve -- as a result of spain and the 1890's. we had to borrow money and at the door roosevelt felt that we should not have to. the nation should not be placed in that kind of position. under andrew jackson, they had what was known as the national bank. he had that thing reopened in 1913. we were still having problems with those guys. they do not get it. with got to stop giving these people so much power.

every time they get power, we have them -- we have a breakdown. host: ok. let's hear from william in kansas. caller: good morning. i believe the banks should be nationalized but not the entire problem of the economy keeps tanking. there are a large part. with the government taking a back step, we will let the market do what it wants. every time we do that, the market of fails. 22 step in and regulate big business, including the banks. -- we need to step in and regulate big business, including the banks. we will not survive. host: bill, an independent in maryland. do you think they should be nationalized?

caller: i'll make it simple. privatization is bad and nationalization is the people own and have the money again. as long as you have these greedy, private people out there, working against us, you know, the tone of america right now is not too good. i am not so crowd -- i'm not so proud to be an american. put the money in the banks and the people's pockets. the previous caller was right. we would get rid of these parasites and these three people that keep inventing different ways to take the money and nobody understands. to rid of these people. i like that. i am against privatization. have her on there. host: thank you.

jean tweets in. another maryland call. this is an independent scholar. caller: i think banks should not be nationalized. the problem we have in america is the lack of guidance and of morality. if you have the government to give more morals, we will have a better-run banking system. there's another thing we have to look at. the irs is auditing its self. if they're not following their own ethical guidelines, that shows you that the government has problems. on money management and using it as a tool to guide citizens and

limit their abilities to function is not the way to run a society. we need to focus on government encouraging more. and then, as a whole, money which is the what it is supposed to beat, which is just a leverage. it was a note to the back in the bible a long time ago. we already know this. practical lending is the worst thing that could never exist. some let's look at facebook comments.

host: dave, and pennsylvania. what do you think? caller: you have to go back to glass stiegel. no doubt about it. c-span had this stuff. all the stuff was predicted. people like ron paul, they do not tell you the whole truth. nixon and kissinger divorced the dollar from gold or silver. it was predicted mass inflation. nixon left in a disgrace. a ford pardoned him. he had nothing to do with that. a 1982 -- started letting them

charge shoot high interest rates on credit cards. and this is all predicted already. c-span2, november 4, 1999. thank you a lot. host: thank you for your call. caller: yes. i have a message for the communists and socialists. you will have to defend your politics with your life. it is not coming to the united states as long as i am around. host: i don't know where you got to communism. caller: nationalization is socialism and communism. host: ok. on our facebook page more people said a "no," and then "yes."

thank you for all your calls and comments. coming up, maya macguineas on how to avoid the a so-called fiscal cliff. and later on, marion blakey joins us to talk about how the industry is preparing for sequestration. >> watched in book andtv and american historytv on the weekend of august 4 and a fit. explore the literary culture of

louisville, kentucky home of the louisville, slugger -- home of louisville slugger and the oldest independent bookstore. >> a lot of stores that i see fail are stores that were opened by people who were interested in having a business. not that they had an attachment to books or a love of books. there were business people. i think you really have to have a gut attachment to books to care enough about them. your customers are like that. they come because they really care about books. >> watch for a book and a space tv and american historytv -- booktv and american history tv. >> this can help you avoid accidents with cars, with pedestrians.

we can see the traffic signs and tell you. >> collision provision. webster mean thousands of channels. smartphones with a 24 hour media life. tonight at 8:00 eastern on "the communicators." "washington journal" continues. host: marion blakey is president of the committee for responsible budget. thank you for coming in this morning. guest: thank you for having me. host: last week to introduce a campaign to fix the debt. what is it? guest: there are some many people inside washington that want to do something about it. we are seeing that it is hard. it is difficult to put together. at least $4 trillion of savings

to get the debt to a normal level. it seems like one of the most important things to do is to have their way to focus all of the energy and calls to the various people who want to make a difference in this to encourage members of congress to get together and work out a plan. one of the problems we're saying is that partisanship means that republicans might want to fix it one way and democrats might want to fix it another way. time is running out. we want to create a real effort to put in place a plan that will stick. some of the people want to make that happen. if people could hear from them, it's good for businesses and households. that would help. we have a great group of people working on this. they are the leaders and who came up with a sensible recommendation and its

cochaired. there are a lot of folks on the committee and a lot of ceo's who are getting engaged in this effort and making the case that in order for them to invest and hire and do all the things a good for the economy, they need to have stability that will fix this problem. host: the committee for a responsible federal budget. they are saying that finding a smart path forward, you can see some of the numbers here. the deficit is all coming into play. you mentioned two names. simpson and bowles. is that the centerpiece? >> the hall commission that they want -- guest: the hall commission that they worked with showed that there was a way to fix this problem. we were coming off of years for

all that congress had done was make the problem worse. people were becoming very cynical. this showed that what you will have to do to fix the problems that we face is deal with the biggest parts of the budget that are causing the problems. the biggest problem we have is a health care reform. we will have to do more than the some symbols commission came up with. -- then the simpson-bowles came up with. our revenues are too slow. they also should you can do so with fundamental tax reform were you printed down of the rates and a way that is good for the economy and raises revenue. i think what simpson-bowles showed was that we can do this. it is really good for growth.

that is really the key to all of this, right? helping the key economy. also, help the people who are most vulnerable in government. we have to fix entitlements. we can do that in a way to protect people who depend on them. they can up with a compromise that reflects the core values of republicans and democrats. again, it is about getting people to come together and compromise. i think it symbolizes how we can make this work. the john boehner and president obama talks were incredibly helpful. we are trying to emphasize that all the people who are afflicted this issue shows how big the problem is and what is needed to resolve. you have to look at all parts of the budget. that is good in a way that is

good for the economy. host: let's look at some of the details. it called for $4 trillion in the deficit reduction over a decade. for $1 trillion in higher taxes. $2.50 trillion in spending cuts. a $500 billion savings in debt servicing. marion blakey -- maya macguineas, you talked about the fiscal cliff. what is it that we're hearing so much about? guest: here is what is scary. we are facing a number of expiring items. the expiration of all the tax cuts. a very sick with the can sequester that is across the board spending cuts. all coming in at once. these are sort of automatic changes. this is what will be good and

what we do not need to do. it is a blood pool. basically, congress is sank we cannot make those choices ourselves. we'll have those automatic changes. it will be so sudden that it will put us back into a recession. it is to go after many of the parts that are not causing problems. would you want to do is not go over that fiscal cliff. it will be bad for the economy. but two, not punch. that is good to see. did they waive all of those policies and add trillions of more to the debt. that would be quite dangerous as well. you want to knock off the cliff. you want to not have a mountain of debt. he to replace this. in order to do that, we need to work as quickly as possible and not wait until the last moment. one of the frightening things here is how serious this problem

is and yet congress is hurtling toward a dangerous tipping point by not taking action to avert the possible scenarios. host: you mentioned congress and the presidential candidates. what would they do? guest: this will be one of the biggest issues the next president has to deal with. and the truth is, we have not heard in enough detail from either of them how they will fix the problem. one of the things that the campaign to fix the debt is calling for is to have a debate beyond. how to fix the national debt? tussocky would hire a ceo to do big turnarounds and without knowing how he would fix the problem, so we should know how he will fix the problem and not just their ideas, but how they will work with congress. both parties. this will take people working together. this will take more of the details out there. i also think it is important to

realize that it is difficult to talk about these issues in a political environment. we're going to have to deal with social security, medicare, medicaid. all these things and people might attack ads against, we need to be able to handle this in an adult way. have that adult conversation we have been wanting to have. we need to be upfront about what it will take. we need to be up front. we also need voters to understand that it takes tough choices. host: maya macguineas is president of the committee for responsible federal budget. the number to call for our democrat line is 202-737-0001. the number to call for our republican line is 202-737-0002. the number to call for our independent line is 202-628- 0205. we have a suit joining us now. a democrat. good morning.

caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i just want to say that everyone is missing the point about how we got to where we are. august it, 1861, abraham lincoln install the first income tax to pay for the civil war. every president since abraham lincoln up until george w. bush and now congress and president obama has not raised taxes to pay for war. if you want to fix the deficit, but my taxes go back to where they were, leave my social security alone, leave seniors medicare alone, leave education alone. there is nothing wrong with social security. everyone keeps saying it is in trouble. it is not. i have my statements. do not touch my money. we have to raise revenue. most people believe that. i just want to hear your thoughts on that.

people do not raise taxes when they are spending money. thank you and i'll take your answer. guest: thank you. a core point you're making, if the government is going to do something, we do have to pay for it. it has been damaging, the fact that we spend so much money that -- on the past or so we did not have money to pay for. we're going to spend more, put on the national credit card. that is just not what we're supposed to be doing. it is weakening the economy. it is completely unfair. we need to change the way we do business on all of this. at the same time, there is no getting around the fact that when it comes to entitlements. social security is facing a very significant financial challenges going forward. when know this because the trustees tellus every year in an annual report that it does not have enough money to cover all

the benefit promises it has made. we need to responsibly lookit the kind of changes we can put in place to bring social security back to wait place of strength. we are going to have to do that by gradually phasing in changes. on this one, we are all living a lot longer. 20 to think about how we will work longer if we want to retire as the same earlier age we have in the past or reduce the level of benefits. i think you can do this in a way that is thoughtful and a phase in a gradually and does not affect current retirees if that is what the system decides to do. we need to make these changes as quickly as possible. it will really harm the people who depend on the program going forward. host: herald, a republican call. good morning.

caller: i was surprised to hear the previous callers say she has her statements and there's nothing wrong. they can write down anything they want. the money's not there, it is insolvent. i don't know if it was the same organization that talked about getting a hold of people's 401k. to try to help bring down some of the deficit. it was so convoluted. it was something to do with taking control and dipping down with increments over a period of time. but some of the things you're saying, it is not very clear. you seem evasive about what you're suggesting we do. i hear you talk aborts a security, but what exactly? are you that same group?

host: let's get some specifics. guest: no. i'm not sure which group you're talking about. your 401k is your private property, but i can imagine that would be alarming to somebody. in terms of being evasive, we have shown a lot of efforts how we can fix the debt. the ones that serious have been incredibly productive. we're going to have to get rid of the programs that don't work. we would probably spend more. in some areas we have to look it seriously scaling back. on the tax side, but we have

done so anyway in forming the tax code. control i would read directives to the most important part of fixing the budget, which is we have to find a way to bring down health- care costs. it is really putting a huge tract on the federal budget and squeezing out other parts of the budget. the most important thing we can do is put in place measures that will control healthcare better. the campaign to fix the debt -- there's not saying there's the right plan, but bring together the people who understand we need to fix the debt. if we don't, we're going to face of very, very damaging economic situation. looking at europe, which years ago would have seen a far cry from what to expect to see here, is a very frightening moment. it shows us what happens when

countries are unwilling to face up to their fiscal problems. in the u.s., we are incredibly lucky. we have people who trust our economy, markets, our ability to lead on getting these problems under control, therefore, we have more time. which means we can phase in the problem -- plan gradually. we need to do it in a chance of markets losing faith. the most important thing is for policymakers to show we have a huge problem, the deficit and debt, they can come to gather and fix it. it is important people go to the website and take a look at what this is doing. trying to bring together people of all parties, different backgrounds and saying, this is the no. 1 american issue we have to grapple with in order to put our country back on a sound fiscal path. we want our policymakers to work

on that, and we will work with them read we know we have to look at all parts of the budget and responsibly tackle the problems. >> the campaign to fix the debt. maya macguineas mentioned fixadebt.org. it is for citizens to call on congress to move forward on a fiscal plan by july 4, 2013. >> social media is a new way of galvanizing people. not only getting people interested to sign up and get involved, but they become active on the issue. one of our calls to use social media to take people who know this is a problem, want to see washington below the fix these problems, use it as a way to inform them. i realize the debt and deficits are not the most interesting issues, but the more you learn about it, the more people want to see a change quickly.

use social media to become active in their communities. that is our intention. we want people to pay attention and take action in order to get involved in their communities, it in their states on this issue. social media will be a big part of this campaign, education, road shows gng on. we like to do things in a bipartisan way. we bring together members of congress and business leaders to educate at the employee level, although it to members of congress, working with them on how to fix this. independent caller. caller: i am a baby boomer. i want to make a comment, we do not need more new taxes i am working six months out of a year now to pay for the hair cuts,

food, everything for the legislatures. they're not my children. second, where is my so security number that was supposedly put into savings account? things need to be changed now. thank you for listening. host: i think we hear this a lot, people are not trusting the white government is managing the money, therefore it is hard when people start talking about the changes we will need to make. you are right. we need to go to the budget line by line by line and make sure that all of our tax dollars are being spent well. when you work hard and pay taxes, it is absolutely necessary that those dollars be treated with respect and not wasted. the truth is that the problems in the budget do not come from legislators getting their hair cut or things that make headlines, but the real problems are big programs we spend a lot

of money on because we like them. health care and retirement, that is where the real money is going. we need to decide, are we going to spend all that money, and which were needed to raise taxes to pay for it, or hair back? in the end, we reported to have to do both. we will have to scour it for wasteful spending. at the end of the day, that will not get his nearly close enough to where we want to go. we're going to have to rethink our major entitlement programs, rethink how we can control health-care costs, rethink how we raise revenue in this country so we do it in a way better for the economy instead of more damaging. and go through each part of the budget. the point you're making is important but people will be unwilling to do that unless they know their money is being spent wisely. no question we have to look at the biggest part of the budget if we're going to fix this problem. if we don't, it every single

thing we are worried about -- high taxes, benefits we have been promised -- are going to be so much harder to fix. this is a problem we can get on top of now, or wait until we're forced to buy markets and will be so much harder to get these fixes in place. there is no excuse to delay. we're going to have to come together as a country in order to put ourselves on the right path. host: this report, congress and the president will face what appears to be a daunting choice either allow the country to go off a recessionary fiscal cliff all at once, or do in the country large deficits that will permanently slow economic growth and increase the likelihood of a fiscal crisis. a law in the country to hit the fiscal cliff of years and would be a dangerous mistake, that adding $7.50 trillion to our debt by extending expiring policies and repealing the sequester without putting a budget on a more sustainable

path would be a travesty. maya macguineas, you have for tim washington at the brookings institute, worked on wall street, consider use of a political independent. how to use the congress coming together at this time to move something ford? guest: members of congress want to solve this problem. they want to make the country better and might have different opinions about the best way to do it, but they also want to solve the problem. there are a lot of members in the senate and the house to think this is the most important issue, and spent a great deal of time figuring out how to reform the tax code, fix entitlements, how to pull it together in a big deal big enough to fix the problem? we see more members understanding these issues, working together, and doing so quickly. we do not have a lot of time.

we need leadership from both parties and the white house. in the end, it will be a moment when the country has to come to gather and do something hard. some of our big challenges in the past have inspired the greatest moments. we hope this will be one of those moments. host: democrat line. good morning. caller: i guess my question would be, how to read it the house to agree with each other and come to some kind of budget? i do believe social security will go in the whole eventually. people are living longer, so many more people are applying for social security to enter their own health, whether it be from obesity or drugs -- a plan for social security due to their own health, whether it be from obesity are drugs, children diagnosed at autism at an even higher rate which will affect social security and care for those children.

how do we stop that run? the building we just had on the washington mall built with the 200 buildings in it? we did not need that. each person that gets paid in each of those offices i am sure is making a very high salary. we do need to cut a lot of the things, but let's not cut from the poor or those who truly need it or we will be looking like a third world country. host: how concerned are you about deficit reduction? caller: very concerned. it is our future. the congress cannot butt with the president and not get anything done. someone has to do something. host: let's get a response from maya macguineas about the poor and federal government and her opinion in growing too much. guest: the point we cannot be a

great country when we are financially dependent on others for lending us money is absolutely right. people need to be worried about this. but i would go back to the point, which he made also, which as we can do this in no way that all protect the poor, that will not have revenues be onerous lehigh, and to make sure the government can still invest in things it needs to. we can do this on our own terms and strengthen the economy and had a booming economy to the next generation, instead of one that is stagnant and indebted, which is the way we will end up if we do not make changes. there are a lot of considerations you have to make. the budget is about choices. we have to make the choices of what programs we are going to reform, which we are or defects, which ones we will end. and how we will raise the money. but we wanted to get on our own terms. we don't want to go over the fiscal cliff.

it is the wrong way to make these choices. but we want to do this in a chance of when credit markets start to lose faith in this country. if that happens, we will not be able to get ahead of it. we will see interest rates going up, the economy going down, and it will be so much harder to make -- to make that fix. we still have the time and the luxury to make those part of a bigger budget deal. but we have to be honest with each other and say, we have been borrowing too much, spending too much, and not paying for it for way too long. we have to come to terms with that quickly and make the changes in a thoughtful way to get the budget back on track. that is the most important thing we can do to help stabilize the economy, to build a strengthened environment as the ambassador likes to say, we're one that

deal way from being a great nation away. we know the solution. we just need to be a put that in place. host: two questions on twitter -- guest: what is great is, people about some symbols. a lot of this is because the two folks who led this commission and joined by many of their colleagues from the right and left in supporting this has traversed the country talking to people about this issue. if there are two people out there who tell like this, it is them. they say with the plan is going to be, talk about why we need to do this, talk about the benefits of doing it and the consequences of failing to, and they end up with standing ovations time after time after time.

i think what they did was in spire is to show we can fix this problem. it laid out a framework of $3 in spending cuts for every one in revenue increases, shows is the kind of deal that will make sense. it laid out the economic benefits of putting this in place. you can help to grow the economy and get it much stronger and larger than it would be if you fail to put this in place. and it shows you can do it in a way democrats and republicans can sign onto. that is why they had dick durbin and senator coburn and many people in between supporting it. i do not think it fell short. i think it was a phenomenal game changer of a plan. i do think what we need to see is more focus on controlling health-care costs, a recognition for the fact the economy is still weak and we need to make sure we face in a plan that works with that, but this is not a policy challenge.

the policies have been laid out by simpson bowles and a lot of other from work and plans. what we need is the political will to come together and do this. host: republican caller, washington. caller: [unintelligible] the accountability office comes up with these guys going to vegas and spending $500 million on a trip to vegas, you add that up, $20,000 for been sticks? you go through all this stuff and it is garbage. this is money that could be used to cover security or for the medicare and medicaid. we do not need all this money spent on things that are unnecessary. the same thing with education. if you want to go to college,

every time the government subsidizes something, everything goes up. education went up. grants and things for education, then the cost of college goes up. get the government out of the way. ticket to the side. quit spending money on this garbage stuff. if they want to go to las vegas, let them spend their money to go to las vegas. guest: it is infuriating and inexcusable and leaves us frustrated on why we cannot get rid of those kinds of irresponsible acts and should never be wasting our money. however, it is not the core of the problem when it comes to the dollars and cents that will fix this. there needs to be oversight scrutiny and consequences when money is wasted like that. but we also need to focus on where the bigger challenge and problems are in this.

you brought up a really important point, which is when we subsidize things. one of the things we do now in this country is we spent a lot of money through the tax code. we have tax breaks that our credit and deductions and exemptions and exclusions, and is a staggering amount totaling over $1 trillion per year -- that is starting to approach as much money as we raise from the income tax. we want to look at how to cut spending through the tax code. when you do that, you can simplify the tax code tremendoly. you'll have more oversight. once the spending cuts are built into the tax code, they are on automatic pilot. when you get rid of them, you can bring rates down to numbers there's so much lower than the current tax rates we have, which will help everyone to have better incentives to work and save and do things to help grow the economy. will we talk about cutting spending, it is also important

think about cutting the spending the less when we talk about cutting spending, it is also important think about cutting the spending. host: maya macguineas, talking about the committee for responsible federal budget new plan. the campaign to fix the debt. she is president of that effort. let's look at some of the key elements of this, calling for lawmakers to acknowledge that is a security threat. stabilize the debt as a share of the economy. and that the plan now, implemented gradually. the campaign to fix the debt also calls for all areas of the budget to be included in the process and ensure long-term economic growth, also calls for including incredible -- credible enforcement mechanisms. guest: in the past, a problem, it spans the years. after two short of a time,

people fail to stick to the tough parts of the budget. the results of a big debt deal is it will help the economy, the fiscal situation will improve. you want to make sure the result of lawmakers does not weaken just because we have a couple good years -- which we will, once we get a debt deal in place. you want to make it harder for them to overrule these tough choices. you want tight spending caps. you probably want caps on the amount was spent in the mandatory part of the budget as well, which thus not go through the appropriation process. -- which does not go through the appropriation process. one of the kinds of ideas is you need to control the cost of health care. that is the most important thing we can do. you want to bring the cost of health care growth down, something like gdp plus one. you want to lock it in there. you want to build in this

process these into the budget so whatever debt to we put in place will last for a number of years. we will not fix this problem in one year or even three years. it will probably take more than a decade. we want to make sure congress can stay on track and does not break the debt deal to help the economy prosper. host: independent caller. caller: good morning. all we have been hearing about is shared sacrifice. it is obvious the 99%, myself included, has done all the sacrificing and it seems to me the top 1% has been doing all the sharing of the sacrifices. it is pretty funny how the gop, the special, and i am a democrat, as far as i'm concerned in the class war that has been ongoing since reagan, i look at the gop as hit men and

the democrats as -- well, they're basically just lead breakers. since when did something that i pay in two of every check, and medicare, such as security, things like that, since when are those entitlements -- how long is it going to be before my paycheck is considered an entitlement? i am a union machinist, which means i middle-class and will have a pension. what i would like to know is, we have all this deregulation of the financial institutions of big business, which effectively, allow these trade agreements, which basically repealed the 13th minute, making slavery legal in china, india, indonesia, you know, i am just sick and tired of -- we have got to make the cuts. how about the top 1%? whenever there is any proposal

to raise taxes on the top 1%, there is no loss but if it is the middle-class and working poor are offered in the kind of break, the republicans are, well, we have to offset it somewhere else. we will have to cut food stamps, laurie or so security. guest: president obama and republican candidate mitt romney, talking about how tax proposals plan would affect the working poor, the middle class and also the wealthy, and you can see the proposed federal income-tax rate and a precedent of them in blue and under mitt romney is in red, it would raise mostly from hiring -- high income families. the middle income families were getting -- this is from the tax policy center, courtesy of "the washington post." average americans are already paying too much? guest: there is a sense most

people are paying too much and are not quite sure what they're getting. keep in mind a couple of things. the difference between how much we're spending and how much we're taking in in revenues is tremendous. hundreds of hundreds of hundreds of billions of dollars we borrow every year, and also going forward. that means we have to find a way to close that gap. growing income inequality is clearly a problem in this country. i think thinking about that when we're putting together a budget plan makes a lot of sense. when i talk to people, it is stunningly generous in many ways where people say, "i am willing to have my sources security or medicare or taxes go up, raise my taxes" if it will be part of a real fix. i am so encourage from people do not just say, "don't touch this,

it's mine." the first point is, we're all getting more out of social security and medicare then we put in on an overall basis. that is why the problems exist. we promised more out of them then we put in. we need to adjust them that way. when people start to say, "this is a country's problem" instead of having different groups that say it "don't touch this." if we're willing to make some changes because we know the overall plan will benefit the entire economy, that is when people start coming to the table. i think it is encouraging. it will be necessary to get us out of the fiscal hole. if we all dig in and say, "you cannot touch what is mine," even when those benefits are things that are far more than we paid in, those promises were never really something we were able to pay for because we had not put enough money in for them, or

even when people say, "don't raise taxes unless it is part of a big deal and fix the problem," then we start to see how to get out of the whole. we need that change. we need people to realize we're in this together and we all have to fix the problem. income inequality has changed dramatically. i think people at the upper income scale are going to be a significant part of the solution. most of the people have talked about that tend to agree. host: florida, democrat line. caller: good morning. taking off with the last caller shared, this problem has been going on for a long time. income equality is the problem. until you fix that the alleged president obama has a solution and romney doesn't.

if 90% of the income is with the 2%, up, you just exaggerates the problem with the tax plan, how does that solve the problem? it does not, ok? that is all i have to say. guest: i couldn't agree more. it is not just going to be the tax policy of the budget, but i think it starts to the beginning. we need to invest a whole lot more in human capital in this country. we need to be making sure there are good jobs, there are high- paying jobs, and there are protections, and that they're all sorts of different mechanisms along the way that help us expand middle-class instead of shrinking it. frankly, the issue goes beyond how we fix the budget. we have to keep this in mind at every step of the way, but we're also went up to look at other

institutions from the very beginning to the very end. one thing i would point out is where we spend our money in this country. we focus the bulk of our federal dollars on consumption programs. if we were to switch that and change how we invest our money and put a lot more money into investments instead of consumption and get away from the notion we always did to be spending, spending, spending to prop up the economy but have a longer-term view on how we are investing in workers and the next generation, that would be a big piece of this as well in terms of making sure the growth in the economy needs to be shared broadly, which is something that has been shrinking over the past years. it is incredibly troubling. host: maya macguineas. let's go to republican caller in florida. caller: good morning. i have to the points. and so security, they have 1

million illegal aliens -- host: and you still with us? caller: yes, we have a legal aliens. now obama went down there to negotiate mexico to give all the farm workers and illegal aliens food stamps to come into this country. host: we're running short on time, what is your second comment? caller: obama gave amnesty to all these kids. are they going to draw such a security benefits? host: the dream act. don is also concern about illegal immigrants getting on the social security role in illegally. guest: we're hearing a lot of things about the waste in government spending, the illegal pieces of this, how government

dollars are being spent in the wrong way. i have to tell you, this is about what is driving the problem read all of those are absolutely legitimate issues. if you think care cuts are driving the problem or illegal immigrants, you can worry about those in the cases they happen, but that is a tiny, tiny, tiny piece of what is going on. what is really going on is our economy has changed. we are living longer. our political system has allowed for us to spend a lot of money without paying for of our debt levels are becoming dangerous. we need to think about how to fix this by looking at where the biggest problems are. in the end, we have a health care system where the growth process -- cost is growing faster. we're living longer and collecting benefits longer than we ever anticipated we would. we need to figure out how to work longer that we are not turning the system as quickly,

or come up with money to pay for that. will know it wants to read headlines about partisan las vegas, that is not where the problem is coming from. we need to tackle this had on to get ahead of it. that is what will tackle the situation. host: talking about the looming fiscal cliff and tax policies and other policies that will kick in over the next few months, the committee for responsible federal budget outlines policies that expire or activate an hour after 2012 including the bush-a tax cuts, the sequester. what can realistically be accomplished this year of such as getting pushed off to the lame duck session? how do you see this getting out with? guest: you keep hearing, "we cannot deal with this in an election year." i know that is frustrating for many of us.

we have this huge problem, we're taking a year off because it is an election year? nobody else gets to take off the air. we need to be working on this immediately. there are tons of efforts going on in the hill. we need to make sure we are ready to go. if the reality is we are not want to be of a talk about a dead deal until after the election, well, that is a shame, but there is a lot that could be done until then. we need to figure out how to get it done. we cannot get rid of the cliff, and we certainly cannot punt without of these taking the first step. at that means putting a down payment of putting in place the whole process to come up with a debt deal of the six months starting in january, that would be credible, but what you cannot

allow is for congress to let us go off that cliff or to just let all those policies disappear with a magic wave of the and and really drive us into a damaging that cycle, that i worry we would not be a become out of host:. maya macguineas president of the committee for responsible federal budget. it has launched a campaign to fix the debt. thank you for coming. guest: thank you. host: coming up, marion blakey, president of the aerospace industries association. also, tom tidwell, head of the u.s. forest service. first, a news update from c-span radio. >> the suspected gunman in the colorado theater shooting has his first court appearance today. he will be advised of the charges against an. authorities say james holmes has

not been cooperating in the investigation and the motive in the attack that killed 12 people is still not known. turning to syria, a foreign ministry spokesman is admitting the country has chemical weapons, the says they will never be used against their own people. a spokesman says the stockpiles are secure and that syria would only use them against foreign attackers. back in washington, the world's largest aids conference has just begun. researchers, doctors, and patients are urging the world government to not cut back on the fight against the epidemic, which they say is that a turning point. the conference is live on c- span2. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> watch book to be an american

history to be the week of august 4 and 5 as c-span local content vehicles export the heritage of literary culture of louisville, ky. >> a lot of the stores are stores that were open by people who are interested in having a business, not that they were or had an attachment to books or a love of books, but they were business people. i think you really have to have kind of day gut attachment to books to carry enough about them, because your customers are like that. they come because they care about books. host: lugo, august 4 and fifth -- watched louisville, august 4 and fifth. host: marion blakey from aerospace industries

association. sequestration is looming. a series of cuts that will affect the u.s. government across the board, but also will hit the defense industry. tell us your concerns. guest: basically, in his dayslash across the entire budget, $1.20 trillion. the difficulty is they already cut $487 billion out of our defense budget. now we're talking about another $500 billion. that goes beyond the muscle, way to the bone. it is a dangerous prospect. host: tells about the aerospace industries association. what companies to represent? guest: we manufacture the technology that keeps our fighters safe. everything from the strike fighter three ships all the way through commercial airplanes. we are part of the manufacturers

that support nasa, for example, and satellite missile defense. host: is it just defense companies affected by this? guest: no, it affects the whole economy. the defense industry, we think about it, permeates all 50 states. there are cases, small and large manufacturers, training, maintenance. that all means when you do take this kind of money out of the defense budget, it has a tremendous job loss affect. just in terms of research and procurement dollars, it is over 1 million jobs we will lose and our economy next year, 2013. when you look at it across the entire -- i am talking about domestic discretionary as well as the defense dollars. it is 2.1 $4 million -- 2.14

million jobs lost. host: marion blakey served a five-year term as the federal aviation ministration and chairman of the national transportation safety board. if you would like to talk with her about the defense cuts and sequestration, here are the numbers to call -- why can the defense industry operate with less? guest: they already are operating with less. we have a very much reduced force out there. we have airplanes, equipment that has been ground down into the boards. go back to the 1980's and were over 600 ships in our navy. now it is less than 300. there is been a drawdown and between the fact we have fought two wars as well as the fact we

have been reducing, in many ways, there's no question our defense dollars are being stretched right now. host: the simpsons center as a critique of the report your group put out voicing concerns how the hits could affect the defense industry and our ramifications on other sectors. it says the flaw is in the numbered this is going off of, going beyond the direct job losses and protecting the indirect jobs that would be lost from defense cuts, the analysis seems to accept the notion that nothing else will happen in the economy in the real world these jobs, nearly two-thirds of the 1.1 million, induced jobs that are linked to defense spending are also treated by economists to every other activity in the economy. it is a web that is far more linked and this raises concerns in might be too two dimensional, your link to the defense

industry and the economy. >> these are good, high-paying jobs that exist right now. these are people that go out and the economy and buy furniture, go to lunch, the kinds of things we all do, support the local dry cleaner. this is had an impact on the small mom-and-pop businesses. the drawdowns have been felt already. the concept it does not affect the overall economy, uh-uh. bravard county alone has had a tremendous hit. there is an economic analyses on demographics of our country and jobs. he knows what he is talking about. host: david, las vegas nv, a democrat. caller: a couple of years ago, the government accountability

office completed their audit of the defense department and identified one of a $20 billion a year and waste, fraud, and it used cutting 60 billion would only be cut in half. government for many agencies and i will tell you every year about two months before the budget for fiscal year is over, there would come around and tell us, we're under budget. we have to spend more money or they will cut our budget, so they would buy furniture, do everything they could spend as much money as possible. we could cut 10% of the federal government budget without touching one job. that is my comment. guest: i wish to work that way, but it doesn't the steady he's talking about was sometime back. since then, the defense to present has been drawn down heavily. hopefully, addressing some of the things that were less necessary, some of the things we could do without. certainly, secretary gates

worked very hard. a part of this team is still on board at the department of defense, tried have better buying power, better efficiency. they're working at it very hard. at a certain point, you cannot absorb these kinds of massive cuts. remember, these are not surgical cuts we can say, all right, there is waste here or something we can do there. these are cuts that are across the board. they hit the just and unjust, as they say. this is something that really is a terrible thing because we have a very strategic plan of how we're going to use reduced resources for our national security. when you cut everything, in this indiscriminate and senseless. adams met said, it is insane. host: take a look at the numbers. it would mean $450 billion in

cuts over the next decade. as our guest marion blakey mentioned, that is in addition to the $487 billion in decade- long reductions from the 2011 debt limit law. we will be hearing words from the ranking member of the armed services committee and just a few moment, congressman smith in the meantime -- right. absolutely true. we make that point all the time. first and foremost we're talking about is the fundamentals of america's national security. when you look at that alone, you realize this will have devastating consequences. secretary gates described it as catastrophic for our national security. we're trying very hard to pick it with the new strategy the president and secretary panetta announced back in february, focusing on asia, the pacific, trying to make sure the straits

of hormuz stay open. all of that tax relief equipment. it takes ships, planes. this is and expensive technology, but technology we have to maintain. one of the things i think is important is that as time has gone on, we have put our young men and women who go into battle in with technology that surpasses everyone else. that is what has given as both success and also protected them in a way you have not seen in previous conflicts. we have to be ample to continue to do that. that is very fundamental in this. host: virginia, republican caller. caller: i have tried along time to get on but sometimes i get confused with the numbers. host: we lost that call.

i mentioned we will hear from congressman smith. let's take a listen. he was with us over the weekend and weighed in on where the u.s. military should look for spending cuts. [video clip] >> we will have to be cautious about what we buy in the future. the f-35 is slated to be 95% of our fighter attack force moving forward. we have to continue with that program. we have to try to get the cost under control. who knows what's the totalby -- total buy is going to be the future, but it is essential to our national security. host: congressman smith, ranking member of the armed services committee. do you have a response? guest: i cannot respond on specific programs, because that is really up to the defense

department. we are working with the committees on the hill to decide. but i can say there are already programs that are slated to be stopped, decommissioned, or -- r & d. as you belong take the time in which you have programs that is supposed to produce a certain number of aircraft, for example, if you stretch it out, inevitably, it costs more per aircraft to do it that way. it is an expensive way of getting to where we ultimately know we need to go. the more that goes on, the marmoset, "my goodness, everything is costing a lot more than planned." yes, it will be if we postpone putting these programs in place. host: maryland, independent caller. caller: good morning. the thing i want to mention was historically, we can learn by looking at history what turned the deficit into a surplus in

the budget, as simply as the 1990's. greeting the frack program -- creating the brac program and increasing capital gains. he put that money into the earned income tax credit, which was the lowest level of spenders. it was taking money frothe rich and giving to the poor. it was popular with the people, but not the military industrial complex. he put no boots on the ground during his eight years. a very expensive proposition. we have to see if it is worth blood and treasure to put our boots on the grounds. is it worth it to do these things? that is the type of cuts that should be made. host: do you have any response,

marion blakey? guest: times have changed greatly. that was before 9/11, before the constant terrorism threat we have, the kind of change in terms of where power since a new is in fact investing very heavily in weapons and in defense systems. look at china alone. china is becoming a great power. there also becoming a very formal -- formidable power. it is a very, very different world than when president clinton was in office. host: donna, a democrat line. caller: i have been watching the debates on the house floor about this. it just seems like no matter what they try to change, forget

it. it is not going to change. death valley, at the republicans do not want a dime cut -- definitely, the republicans do not want a dime cut. how do we change this? we're still making planes and different things to fight the soviets. it is just insane, you know? the soviet union does not even exist anymore. it is russia, and yet we are still, you know, doing those kinds of things. i anderson and people need jobs, but there are lots of other things -- i understand people need jobs, but there are lots of other things we could do. cuts to americans is going to hurt. host: your response? guest: the defense department does focus its expenditures, its

investments, its research and development -- it is not the cold war technology. what dod is making is in systems that actually address very, very sophisticated threats. that is the world we are in. every poll shows americans understand we're in a very dangerous world, a world where we do have responsibilities but trying to maintain stability, trying as much as possible to keep the keys is the role -- keep the peace is the role of the united states. beyond that, for some concern about the economy at large, to realize sequestration is $1.2 trillion that will affect our domestic programs, too. i do not think enough has been said about that. we're talking about everything from research in terms of health, talking about our

inspectors, food inspections. we are talking about the park service and the ability to keep parks (faa, air traffic control will have to absorb over $1 billion in cuts. that will have operational affects on our overall aerospace and ability to fly as wherries to right now. the next generation and transportation system is very exciting it will reduce delays and cut back on the environmental impact of the fuel burn. but you have to put that system in place. it is a satellite-based system, and you have to invest in that. all of that will be pulled back if we have this devastating cut coming at the beginning of january host:. marion blakey president and ceo of the aerospace industry association. our next call, republican. good morning. caller: good morning.

my concern is with the diplomat troops and emissions in countries that have been there for decades -- munitions and countries that have been there for decades. we continue toy maintain that in germany. the of 35,000 troops in the 38th parallel. also, large parts of asia. i guess my question is, of a larger expanse, why we have diplomats in areas where they are clearly not needed? in my opinion. guest: as the head of the association that represents the manufacturers, i will tell you i'm really not in a position to second-guess where we have troop deployments around the world. i will say the strategy that secretary panetta and the president laid out, focused on the middle east and asia.

i think you'll see a shift of resources in those directions, if it is allowed to take place. as i say, if these kinds of cuts go into place, that will all be thrown into a dog that and strategy will be meaningless. that is what we're struggling with. host: some of our callers have made suggestions of where they think cuts could be taking place. whether it is cuts in troops overseas, germany, or other areas they see room for trimming, is there any danger of the boy cried wolf? is there a danger and people, the pendulum swinging the other way? guest: i think we all recognize we have to make tough calls. the debt and deficit have to

come down. all parts of our economy, all industries have to do their part on this. that is not under debate. what probably the callers and those rights in in do not have a way of assessing it is that last summer, we put in place $487 billion in cuts. that is affecting dramatically a lot of programs, a lot of aspects of the new budget. now, at this point, another $500 billion on top of that, everyone -- and i am talking about both sides of the aisle on the hill, two secretaries of defense, everyone says this should not happen. this is cutting way to drastically. i think that is what we're faced with. almost no one is debating this should not happen. the problem is, how are we going to resolve the dilemma on the hill and address it? it is the law. it will go into effect unless someone steps up and takes

leadership of it. host: peter, independent line. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. my wife has been working [unintelligible] the same directive comes down this time of year, the budget. the fiscal year is coming to an end in september. if they do not finish what they have in their budget, they will not be a sign that some amount every year. it will be cut. they have these positions in place where they cut -- it is not about fine-tuning, but making these departments realize if they do not spend their money, they don't really have to. through two administrations that have the same directive. host: what is your idea for a way to fix that? caller: well, i mean, i don't

know. these are contacting agents. they spend their time a signing contracts for the aerospace industry. it is one of the main basis to test military hardware. it is hard to tell where you should cut in a situation like this. something like cutting overall dod is just going to be a thick slice and no contest where it is going, is kind of not real. they do have all of these systems in place to keep track of their money, but i don't know if the man knows about all of these situations, but that is my comment. host: thank you for your call. guest: it is not a question of being able to track it, is a question of the indiscriminate nature about its that it cuts everything across the board.

whether it is important, worthy, essential, or something that is a less party. that is the way to do business. i would say this, this has been a very chaotic here because of the kind of uncertainty is a question -- sequestration has put out there. it is not too surprising lot has held back on making commitments in terms of the financial resources until they try to see how the year is playing out. that is what is going on with a number of them. the uncertainty has made the business of government a lot worse in terms of predictability, transparency, doing things well then it would be if we were operating on budgets that were approved in the beginning of the year and

those with contracting authority running programs new from the outset what to count on. that has not been the case for some time, and that is a real problem. host: marion blakey with us today. she became the eighth full-time chief executive of the association back in 2007. prior to that, five years as the administrator of the faa and with chairman of the national transportation safety board. guest: they thought this was going to be a sort -- would hang over everyone's head and forced the super committee -- remember the super committee? the idea was to set up absolutely intolerable alternatives that would force people to come to the table and deal with what really is at the

heart of this. we have unsustainable programs. these are areas that have to be reformed. and our revenues-are spending. we need tax reform as well. those two things are hard to do. as a result, i think it is fair to say the congress back up. they did not get it done. now there staring off a fiscal cliff. host: democrat line, ohio. caller: good morning. i am sure this is like a nightmare to all of you, the works with congress and senate, but i am wondering when the tarp money was given to the banks and auto industries,, was there a

significant deadline on when these companies were given this, and put that back in the fiscal system for the budget for congress? host: why do you bring that up? why does it concern you? tell us more about why you think that is important. caller: because i think if they don't pay it back, then that gives other companies, you know, this idea that they can do this bernie madoff-scheme like thing, like jpmorgan. they are doing stock trading and this kind of stuff with wall street when they're supposed to be a bank. it is not good for americans, and that americans are trusting

these banks to hold their money -- and yet americans are trusting these banks to hold their money, money they worked hard for. this is costing the american people because of all these people doing all of these things and coming up with terms of their own instead of following the rules of the fdic and following deregulation given to these companies by the loss of congress said they do not do these things, and making it worse for the american people to continue to pay for something that is not even the american people's ball. how long are they going to continue to let these people get away with this? host: we were talking about the fiscal cliff earlier, and banking issues. right now we're speaking with marion blakey, president of the aerospace industry association. take a look at some numbers the aia came up with, looking at and

back to the defense or of the defense cuts, rather. this would lose over there to $9 billion of money in workers' wages -- this would lose over $59 billion. for this would boost unemployment by 0.6% but negatively impact g.d.p. growth. these numbers are from george mason university. if you can see the other numbers of their websites and we have an interactive graphic "you can see where it would impact. which states would it hit the largest? guest: california, texas, virginia, the district of columbia. there are other states you would not think of, like georgia. there is an enormous impact across the board. the numbers are absolutely right in there pertain to cuts to

defense, are randy, new weapons, new equipment -- research and development, new weapons, new equipment but they do not talk about the broader effects of sequestration. we look at how it affects the domestic part of the government than those numbers pop up to over 1 million jobs lost. that is just in fiscal year 2013. when you had this all together, it is an enormous blow to our economy. republic host: in line for morgan joining us now. -- republican line. exactly what this senator barack obama said weaver going to do to america? we were going to make cuts to be equal to the world. if you make these cuts, we will

not be equal to anyone. in my opinion, america is losing our freedom. if we lose our freedom, it's my fault because i did not stand up and say, "wait a minute." they say russia is not someone to be afraid of. then why did putin tell mom you will not going to syria? that was a threat to our president and nobody said anything. host: off of twitter -- how you put those together? one caller who is very afraid and another who says this is just propaganda? guest: we are dealing with facts and mass. -- math. this will take $1.20 trillion out of our domestic gdp and budget.

c is on top of the enormous cuts for defense which does weaken our national security. that is something that people who are in the know agree that it is a dangerous approach. the weakening of our national security, we have been talking about this for a long time to come because you cannot just turn off r and d, turn off development, and you believe suddenly the threat is higher. it is high right now. anyone following with terrorism around the world, cyber security as well as the lives of new power understand that this is a very dangerous world. that was not the case in previous defense downturns. a case could be made that the threat levels have changed. that is not the case today. no one believes that. from a defense standpoint alone, it is a very dicey proposition

that we're looking at. on top of that, the numbers of jobs we are talking about, how does it make sense in an economy that is struggling to get off of its knees to cut good, high- paying jobs and add to the unemployment rate? why would we do that for what is essentially only a nick on the debt and deficit. sequestration does not do anything for our long-term problems with the debt and deficit. this is a minor share. then when you think about the fact that when these programs are cut, the programs involved will have all of these shot down costs involved. there is a lot of uncertainty on there right now, so companies that could invest, new training,

a new facility, new r&d, who would do that in this environment? you do not know what to expect. the best they will be able to do is to pull back. that's a terrible thing for an economy there really is trying its best to get back. host: damon, independent in kennesaw, ga. go ahead. caller: i want to piggyback on what the guy said earlier. there is no threat in the system. lookit the nations that can do anything to us, other than russia, who you have propped up as this threat against us for forever. they are in cahoots. they are all in it together. you have been fear mongering since the vietnam war. reagan came in with fear this,

fear that. you have been preaching fear as long as i can remember. no one is going to destroy the golden goose. war is a way for them to funnel money to rich people to keep them rich with unsubstantiated funds. they keep these money going through these families and companies. i think it was eisenhower who said it is a failure of the industrial complex. host: let's get a response. guest: damon lives in a very different world than i do. unfortunately, the threats out there are very fierce and very real. we really do have to protect our own, not just for today, but also to be able to stand up when

things escalate, but inevitably they will. that is what has happened throughout history. it makes no sense to stand down and go into a crouch when we got this point the world is going to be dangerous for the foreseeable future. host: bloomberg news reported this story last month. foreign military sales set to double it. they're likely to reach $60 billion this year, double the exports in 2008, according to a pentagon official. guest: we still make the best technology. other countries do want the type of equipment that the u.s. can generate, but what you also see is that the markets there are

small. while it's very important for our partners to have technology, a number of these countries are willing to fight with us. at the same time, while that helps reduce the cost per aircraft, for whatever it is, it does not compensate for the massive cuts we are contemplating at home. it is an affirmation in the united states. it's certainly will not compensate for what we're looking at right now. host: anthony, democrats, from north carolina. caller: good morning. .s. marion, i'm a veteran i know about the military. i know the things they have to have to keep it maintained. i agree they should keep it maintained, but our problem is the tea party cutting

everything. they do not see a need for anything to be in effect. in the senate, the republicans are constantly filibustering anything that needs to be done. the problem is that we need to have congress and the senate understanding that we need these things because when it comes down to the time to go to war, it's going to be too late to say we need to come together now and do this. when war starts, they do not wait for people to come to gather. they just start fighting. guest: the gentleman makes a good point. thank you for your rvice. veterans understand the difference it makes to have the right equipment, the right technology when you are on the front line. i think it's fair to say that this is a bipartisan problem.

it is a bipartisan solution that we need. you are right. we do need both sides of the aisle, house and senate, and the president's administration to come together on a solution. we need to see a solution that addresses the fundamentals of what is wrong with our economy right now, what is wrong with our spending and revenue situation, not by going after the defense department. it can be a popular target that we can somehow always cut defense. not any longer. host: s.i. new york, republican caller. -- staten island and york. -- new york. caller: a young kid in new york. there are hundreds of us, millions of us. we see people like you for who you really are. you are disgusting. host: do not need to call our

guest names. caller: you like to us all day and you sell us out. host: birmingham, alabama. caller: thank you to c-span for your guest. i do not think the defense department ought to have unlimited budgets, but the defense of our nation is a constitutional requirement for our government. the expenditures driving us over the cliff have to do with areas that are not required by the constitution. i do think we need leadership and that is why we elect presidents. this president has not led. he tries to hand things off to commissions and committees. the one place he did exert leadership, in health care, he was not able to bring bipartisan support for that. he just rammed it through something so deep in the american family without

bipartisan support. he put in a budget that was voted down 99 to one in the senate. nothing in his administration leads us to believe that he will ever be able to lead. without the president, you will not get bipartisan support for this. my hope is that this group being put together from simpson-bowles will be able to get a veto-proof group in the lame duck, because i would love for president obama -- when he was a senator, he was utterly partisan and he is doing that now. that's who he is. yes, somehow we have to get this done without the leader of our country. host: warren independent

scholar. you mentioned concerns about president obama is leadership. they have talked about the minority leader in the senate saying he did not want to see the president's agenda go through. caller: i do not lay all the blame on president obama at all. i wish we were not having comments like that from the leadership of both houses, but these men are elected by the people. we elect the president to exert leadership. the president put together since and- -- simpson-bowles and just let it sit there. he did not leave. we elect the president to bring the parties together. -- he did not lead. host: marion blakey, our guest, brings a partisan strife.

we were talking about this earlier. what do you think is realistic to get done before congress adjourns for the year? we're looking at the lame-duck session for a lot of issues to be on the docket. guest: too many issues. everyone is trying to push all of the difficult issues to the lame-duck session which will make it almost impossible to get the kind of things done that are critical. we think they need to move ahead right now recognizing what are important in terms of sequestration and roll it back. there are a variety of ways propose to do it. one thing that people are not factoring in is that companies have to make plans will in advance, not only because it is the prudent thing to do from running a business, but also because they are required by law. there is a law on the books there requires, for federal

contracts, that you notify your employees 60 days in advance going through plant closings and mass layoffs which is what sequestration will involve for many companies. 60 days roles this will back into the fall, which you can imagine, from january 2nd. some states, california for example, requires 90 days. banks lives will be going out to massive numbers of americans. this is very hard for the average worker. and i laid off? will this happen? have you make decisions about your child's college and when you're going to do from the standpoint of your family budget? it's unfair. this is the law that congress in the 1980's. congress needs a lot to fix

sequestration. the need to step back and render null and void or, at minimum, push it way back so that there's plenty of time. we're talking about a couple of years for congress to do the right thing with regard to the fundamental problems in the economy. host: marion blakey, chairman of the national transportation safety board and now works with lobbying groups for the defense industry and is president and ceo of the aerospace industries association. thank you for joining us this morning. coming up next, our weekly your money segment looking at fire fighting with the u.s. forest service chief tom tidwell. >> it's 9:16 a.m. eastern. the international olympic committee chairman earlier today led a minute of silence during a ceremony calling for promoting the olympic truce.

he started by "honoring the 11 is really a olympians killed in the 1972 munich games -- israeli colombians killed -- olympians killed. the phone hacking scandal has gone beyond the tabloid company and has spread to other newspapers. the deputy assistant said a competing publications engage in many of the same illegal practices. politico reporting police and federal officials have put security around anthony weiner's wife after a new jersey man threatened her. the individual made an unspecified threats after last week's remarks by michele bachmann claiming that her

family had ties to the muslim brotherhood. the man was questioned by the nypd and the state department but has not been charged. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. [video clip] >> you can see in your car like an electronic eye. it can help you avoid accidents. it can see traffic signs for you. >> collision prevention, webster reaming, smartphones with a 21- hour battery life. the latest from the consumer electronics association technology fair on capitol hill. tonight on "the communicator's" on c-span2. host: every monday morning, we

look at a portion of the federal budget, how much it costs, what is spent, what it does, and who it affects. this morning, looking at the federal government's role in fighting wildfires. here to join us is the tom tidwell, the u.s. forest service chief. thank you for joining us. give us, first of all, an overview of what the u.s. forest service does when it comes to fighting firefighters. how much does the federal government get involved? guest: we are one of five agencies that is actively involved dealing with wild fire suppression. the department of the interior, commerce, fema, and the fence all play significant roles. this is in conjunction with the state, counties, and local fire departments. we all work together to deal

with the number of fires began every year. host: how have the fire's been this summer? where are the hot spots? guest: it is about average. colorado, utah, southern idaho. we expected to continue. as the fire season progresses, we can expect an increase in california and probably up into war again this year. host: we have seen the fires in colorado. he makes the decision about when the federal government gets involved? what has to be a mistake? where does the buyer have to be burning? guest: it is the initial attack resources, whether the city, county, or local service, they respond immediately to the fire. they quickly indicate if they have enough resources to handle it. if then, they will start to order in national resources. they called the dispatch center

and order whatever kreuz they need, additional engines, aircraft -- whatever crews they need. host: chief tidwell, spending 33 years at the forest service and was made chief in 2009 and has served at a variety of positions in all mobile of the agency. we saw some images of the firefighting efforts, dropping the fire suppressants. give us an idea of what the men and women work for you do to fight the fire fighters -- wild fires. guest: is the firefighters on the ground that put out the fires. we need the aircraft that can drop retardants, helicopters that drop water, and the engines that can deliver water. the people on the ground are the ones that construct the fire lines and are killing ensure the fire gets put out. it takes a combination of those

resources. a lot of it comes down to hard, difficult, grueling work. the fire burns up to the line and is able to be stopped. guest: if you would like to talk about firefighting effort that the federal level, here are the numbers to call. let's look get some of the numbers for equipment and manpower, as our guest was just talking about. 8400 personnel, nine air tankers, 578 fire engines, 79 helicopters. is this strictly in the u.s. forest service? you mentioned there are several agencies. guest: these are just in any given day. we have over 10,000 firefighters plus another 8000 people to help out when we get

in the really active season. this season, we have used up to 25 large air tankers and we have 45 helicopters rican bring to a mission on any given day. what are the total resources that we bring? and when you add in the other federal agencies, it is a tremendous amount of resources. that is what it takes to be able to deal with, in any given year, 50,000-60,000 wild fires. you do not hear about most of them because the majority of them, 98%, are put out during the initial attack. the public never hears about them. it's a very small percentage. you get the right conditions that escapes the initial pass them those are the ones you will see on the news and hear about. host: from pennsylvania on the republican line, good morning.

caller: good morning. i've been on the internet, and i see where evergreen corp. has a 747 that can carry 26,000 gallons of retardant, yet i have never seen that aircraft in service. does it still exist? are you familiar with it? guest: we used a few years ago in california. we have a dc-10, a very large air tanker. , whether it is the 747 or this one, there are limited areas. you have to have more general terrain, areas where they have a much larger flight path of than the other retardant plans. in the right conditions, they can be effective which is why we use a dc-10. host: talk to us about the fire

fighting efforts that go on, not just a matter of men and women using water, but the other things that are done, whether it is creating lines, doing controlled burns. how else do you work on fighting a fire? guest: we did -- the first thing we do is that the level of expertise it takes to size up what needs to be done. that gets done rather quickly because of the people we have with decades of experience. based on that, there's than a strategy about where to construct the line somewhere to do burn out operations to contain the fire. the first thing, they look at what it will take to keep the fire out of the community, keep the public safe, and keep our firefighters safe. then they will either start constructing lines or do burn out operation so that they can

move to control the fire. host: democratic line in new castle, indiana, good morning. caller: i was just wondering with these increasing forest fires, not just in california, but other places, has anybody checked in to what it is doing to atmosphere and global warming? are they expected to increase? when: there's no question we get these large fires that there's a lot of carbon ltd. into the atmosphere. it is also part of just the natural cycle of events with our natural forest. in most forests, we can expect to have periodic fires. when you get these large catastrophic fires, it puts an additional amount of carbon into the atmosphere. that in itself is not seeing an

increase, but ideally we would like to have more fires burn out a much less severe rates of the we get the fires burning on the ground reducing the small diameter material, the draft and the brush, and leaving more of our large trees standing. those would be the ideal conditions we continue to manage the forests for. host: matt -- guest: large fires have increased over the last decade, no question. -- that is several things. there's an increased warming of the climate. we have seen extended drought we're having to deal with. the fire seasons are not anywhere between 30-60 days longer than what they used to be. the snowmelt occurs much earlier in the year which allows these fields to dry out a little bit sooner.

that is where we're seeing these large buyers especially early in the season, like in colorado this year. we are having record dry fuel moisteure. with the right wind come you get an ignition which makes it so difficult for our firefighters to suppress during an initial attack and we get large fires. host: independent, from new hampshire, welcome. caller: we talk about the wild fire, but what about the wild life? how much money goes into that from what the wild fires themselves cost to stop? wild lifened with the after the wild fires. guest: we also share your concerns.

the walleye is usually able to move out of danger and get out of there. what happens is they lose the habitat from these very large catastrophic fires. it's one reason we are increasing our investment in doing forest restoration to thin out the forest so when we do get a fire started, it burns at more of the moderate severity so that there are still a lot of green trees alive after the fire. the forester covers the that much sooner that way. in addition, following the large wild fires, we do a lot of burned area emergency we have worked. we will do seeding right after a fire to bring back the watershed and the wildlife as quickly as we can. host: the u.s. forest service chief tom tidwell is our guest.

what happens when you do treatment efforts? this is the dual treatment success story from the fire in 2011. what are we looking at and why is it significant? guest: the first picture there, there were not any treatments done. every tree has been killed, lost. there is no vegetation on the ground. if you're out there, you would see a lot of impacts to the soil. this picture you're looking at here come the same fire, same situation, location, except we did some treatments prior to the fire. you see green trees still there. use the pockets that are not burned in there's still a lot of litter in the ground. the watershed is in better shape and it will produce a grass,

brush, and everything come back. the forest recovers. when a fire hits these treated areas, it drops out of the treetops and it gets down on the ground down then firefighters can be much more effective with their suppression. the difference we saw there is that when we did the treatments, the firefighters were able to stop the fire before it came in to the subdivisions and thousands of homes were saved because of the treatment that was done prior to the fire. host: here is another example of a treated and untreated area. what does the treatment mean? guest: it is thinning out the forest. getting in there and removing some of the smaller diameter material. it is to reduce the density said that we have at your trees per acre so that when a fire get started and it gets up into the

top of the trees, it cannot spread from tree to tree. there is space between the crown. that is what naturally would occur throughout the west. and it's the difference we're seeing today. many of these stands have a lot more trees per acre than what would naturally occur. by going in and fannie and out, it reduces the rate of spread -- by going in and thinning it out, it reduces the rate. at whatt's look happened after these had a fire rage through. guest: you can see the difference when the fire hit the treated area. it was done specifically to be able to treat the fourth round these homes so that when the fire that the treated areas that we had thinned, the fire got on

the ground and the firefighters were then successful in stopping that fire before it burned into the homes. host: democratic column in connecticut, good morning. caller: you answer my question regarding prevention while i was on hold. i do want to bring up the point that the defense budget is roughly $700 billion per year. the closest of our enemies is china at $117 billion. you mention you get some of your funds from the defense department. i'm curious as to whether you're trying to employ veterans in your forest service management areas. what effect has blogging had? has it been good? can it be done creatively to

help prevent forest fires? i will hang up to listen to your answer. of goodhat's a series questions will try to go through all of them. we receive are on appropriations in the bill, but we do get assistance from the departments of defense. they provide aircraft when we get into hefty fire season to help to deliver fire retardant. at times, we have trained battalion help us do firefighting and construct lines. they have often provided helicopters for medevac operations, etc. we rely on our own budget appropriated every year, but at times we do get additional assistance from the department of defense. of theet's look at some numbers from the forest service budget. the total was $5.10 billion in 2012. wild life and fire management

was $1.70 billion. the suppression reserve fund is $315 million. guest: we have seen a higher portion of our budget meeting to be dedicated to the wild fires. when you factor in the assistance we provide to the states to help them with their efforts, we are now over $2 billion per year. half of that is for the preparedness of resources, to pay the firefighters, contract for the aircraft, have engines in place ready to go at the start of the season. the other big portion of it is to pay for the annual cost of fire suppression itself. every year is a little different. we submit a 10-year rolling average, our best estimate of

what we feel we will need to pay for the suppression costs each year and that is what congress has been appropriating each year when we request the 10-year average. host: our caller also asked about logging and the role it plays. guest: that goes with doing the restoration work. around the residential areas, you were then able to use that biomass, the trees come to be able to offset the cost of doing that work. whether they are large enough to be used for timber or smaller material that can be used with biomass for bioenergy, anything weird looking at trying to expand the market. we look to use the material to help us offset the cost of the work. the thinning a dark forest, the logging damage is essential and we continue to rely of the

industry to do this work. it used to be in the forest service. industry relied on us to put out a certain number of timber sells each year. today, that relationship has changed. now, we rely on the wood products industry to be able to do the restoration work that has to be done in our forests. it's essential that we find markets and continue to explore new markets so that those industries can stay viable and stay around to be able to do the restoration work that needs to be done, especially around our communities, were all these examples we have been looking at today make it so clear that by doing this restoration work, we can make a significant difference, reduce the impact of the wild fires, but also increase our effectiveness we can keep these fires from burning down an entire community. host: off of twitter --

is that a simple way to explain the relationship? guest: it is. we contract it out. the contractor comes in and does the work. they remove the material. ideally, they are then able to make money off of the materials they remove the stanley business. it's becoming more and more difficult with struggling for the loss of market for wood in the united states. that is why we have been spending time to expand opportunities for biomass, bioenergy, to be able to use this material, this would that needs to be removed in different markets. host: the u.s. forest service chief tom tidwell is our guest and we are talking about wild fires. our next caller is from colorado springs.

caller: good morning. i have some knowledge of aerial firefighting and i was one of the families evacuated from my home for seven days because of the waldo canyon fire. you talked earlier about incrementally attack of the fire and the use of the very larger tankers, like the dc-10, the importance that they bring to firefighting capabilities. those larger craft bring more retardant sooner to the fire and you get more gallons per dollar on the target with your aircraft. my question is how do you expect those air tanker companies, especially the large air tanker with proven capabilities like the dc-10 be available to the u.s. forest service to put them on contract at all?

you only put them on a call when needed a contract which diminishes their effectiveness and threatens their continual viability as a low-cost commercial asset? host: you back in your house now? things are okay? caller: we're very fortunate. there was literally fire up to the patio's and backyards in our neighborhood, but we were scared, unlike the tragedy in the mountain shadows area. host: do you feel like anything could have been done by you and your neighbors to prevent this in a better way? do you think that firefighting efforts were effected? -- effective? caller: firefighters and emergency responders did an

excellent job. you can see that they saved our homes. you see where the waldo canyon fire started and it was a difficult area to get into. looking at the typography on here, it seems to me that dropping some retardant lines along the ridge lines, and doing it early, putting in more gallons earlier maybe could have really scared some neighborhoods. that is just my question. these companies are in business to support, but if you do not put them on a contract than they will all go out of business. that is my question. how does the forest service expect them to be available? host: thank you for sharing. guest: i'm sorry you were out of your home for a while, but it's great to hear that your home survived. first of all, thanks to you and your neighbors for leaving when

the sheriff and the city gave the orders for people to evacuate. it is essential for people to do that. we know how hard it is to leave your home, especially when you do not see the fire threat until a few days later. first of all, thank you for that. when it comes to fire retardants, people need to understand that it will slow down a fire for a little while, maybe only 20-30 minutes to an hour at the most which gives us enough time for the firefighters to get in there and construct the line. when we get a fire like we did there at wall the canyon and it came down the region to colorado springs -- waldo canyon, in addition we use the large helicopters carrying 1500-1,800 gallons of water. when you get a fire of that size, the retardant is

ineffective or the fire spots over it. it was sometimes spotting a quarter of a mile in front of the main fire. in those equations, the retardant is ineffective. it does not make a difference if we were using three, four, or five tankers dropping or having one plane coming in and dropping between 12,000-20,000 gallons. it needs to be put in place that it will worke. has to be done accurately. the tankers we were using in that terrain were the right plans for that fire. if we would have brought in the dc-10, we had aircraft there. we had the right set of conditions and then the wind colorado springs.

i know how difficult is for people to understand these fires. if there was one more aircraft, one more helicopter it would take to stop these fires, we would have a. it's a combination of all the resources. when we get the record dry fuel moistures we have had in colorado, temperatures, strong wind, that fire is going to move on a zone and it does not matter how many retardant plans we have. we will not be able to stop until it burns into a lighter fuel area. i can tell you from being out there, i appreciate what you had to go through. i also appreciate what are firefighters did. the men and women out there did a tremendous job. as i drove around the subdivisions to see, yes, there

is a tragic loss of homes and lives. there were thousands of homes saved. people do not hear about them as often. those are ones where the firefighters were able to pull the burning material away from homes. they really made a difference. i really appreciate your question. once again, thank you for drawing the right thing and evacuating when you did. host: 4 service chief tom tidwell -- forest service chief. here's a story from "the new york times." in 1954 vintage planes wobbles for a moment and the engine toiled to pull skyward. he watched the potbelly plane, designed to hunt submarines, climbing toward its latest mission, fighting wildfires in of the american west.

talked with about the aging fleet. why is that happening? the rating in line to replace it? what can you do? -- is there anything you can do? guest: they have done a great job for the last few decades, but they do need to be replaced. we have put out the air tanker strategy and we sent congress earlier this year. we to move forward and bring in our next generation of air tankers. we put out a contract this year to start bringing on the new planes. we are having contractors, in some cases, retrofitting existing aircraft. we will have three more of the next generation aircraft coming on this fire season and another

four for the next season. the contracts are range in a way that we can continue to add additional aircraft so that if we move forward, we have to retire the older aircraft and we will be bringing on the next generation to replace them. they will be much more modern aircraft. they will be faster, carr ofy heavier loads. that is-- carry heavier loads. they need a higher flight speeds to get from one fire to another sooner. they carry at a minimum 3,000 gallons of retardant. that is what it takes for the retardant to penetrate through the canopy and actually get down to where the fire is on the ground. if the retardant just gets caught up on the top of the brush, it will just burn underneath it and it is ineffective. those are the things we continue

to move forward with to make sure that we will continue to have enough air tankers to be able to deal with wild fires. republic host: and a caller from dallas, welcome. -- host: republican caller from dallas. caller: mike call has to do with the fire retardant gels you can spray on homes. what is the relationship with the forest service? i know most of this focuses on the domans of the local fire departments. the e fires go towards h neighborhood than they know how far it is and when it will get with a certain neighborhood. if teh gel is not available to

spray on these homes to save ut the hat abotu th responsibility of the fire service working with the local fire department bringing some of this in if it's not available to spray this homes? -- these homes? guest: the gel can be effective, but it has to be applied right before the fire comes in and it only lasts for a small amoutn of time, a few hours. the problem and give that is that you have to have the equipment on site to be their right as the fire is coming in to a subdivision in be able to put this on the structures so that it will be effective. the problem with that, and we will use the fire in colorado

springs, but people were evacuated two days before the fire came in. it burned in three different directions before finally, on the fourth day, it took a run toward the community. you have a short time before it came into the community. that's the problem with this gel that can be used. it has to be applied right before the fire is coming in to the community and it only lasts for a relatively short period of time. it is not like you can coat your home with it two days ahead of a fire. it is one thing that we continue to look at every tool that there is to continue to work with the city fire department to look at everything that we can do to really make a difference. one of the things that we do ask homeowners, and we work with the states and counties, is to make

sure they have the right information they need to have a good decisions about how they build their homes, keep the brush cleared away, not using combustible materials. it can make a difference when these fires burning in these communities. largerwe're seeing much fires. for those who live farther away from the forest, they have to be more concerned than they used to be so we feel this is the best option and we continue to work with the community so that they can do a better job, especially with new construction and even existing construction, to build without flammable material. i can tell it will make a big difference. it does not save every home, but it helps our firefighters and gives them a chance to quickly extinguish a small fire on my home and be able to save it

versus losing it. host: u.s. forest service chief tom tidwell. independent scholar, brandon. caller: hi, tom. i have a question about policy. i know the forest service used to have more of a "let it burn" policy towards these wild fires. i was just curious as to how that has changed over the years. i know you mentioned climate so.nge factors all soa what are the mitigating factors as to whether or not you will let a fire burned as to when you decide to extinguish it? guest: we have never had a "let it burn" policy. we manage buyer when we can safely do it.

-- we manage buyers when they can safely do it. we feel need to increase this by another 20% over the next two years. it we did the majority of this through the use of the fire. we the mechanical treatment around the homes when we are in theire logging. when we have the right set of conditions where we can manage that fire to stay in a certain watershed, then we do it. we're still constructing and taking suppression efforts, but because we're having a very low spread or low severity on the fire, we can manage it for resource benefits, to continue to thin out the forests. we will have to continue to do more of this. we can do it when we can control and manage it to a point to keep it in the areas that we want to. that always be the challenge.

this fire season has increased and we have stopped all of our prescribed burning and the managing fires because of the severity of the conditions. it is still a told that we continue to work on. we have to find more ways to be able to manage the fires to be able to deal with the amount of fuel we have in the back country. that will continue to be our no. 1 fuel, the use of prescribed fire and managed fire. host: one of our earlier callers asked about job opportunities for veterans. usajobs.gov is a resource for veterans to look for jobs. virginia, bill, republican line. caller: i would like to commend the forest service on that treatment program. i spent 30 years hiking through

arizona. if these people would get out of their houses and go out and are actually experience a treated area in one of these brambleized things that are so packed, they noticed the difference. it is night and day. if you do not have this stuff on the ground, the fire cannot burn has talked and the trees can just burst from the heat from everything piled up on the ground. i think they should make a works project thing, like they did in the depression, when they got the kids out to clear these forests. it would solve some on employment and give the four service a shot in the arm. they get people who do not even want to get out of the car. if they understand that these things have to be cold just like crops -- culled like crops. you can then use the resources

and money you get from harvesting these resources, because they are natural resource, to for the benefit of the parks system. host: it takes staffing and it also takes money. guest: we put it in the budget requests each year. that is why we put out the accelerated restoration strategy. in a knowledge is that there are 65-83 million acres of our national forests that needs some restoration work, either timber harvest or prescribed fires to reduce the threat of catastrophic fire. that is one of the reasons why we put in the strategy that we need to increase the rate of areas we're treating each year by 20% over the next few years to be able to recognize the amount of work out there. we also want to expand the idea of using you.

we have had some great -- using youth. we want to get more use out in the woods so they understand what is really going out out there and provides them a job, that chance to beat a part of doing this restoration work to see a difference. it used to be that there was a lot of controversy and debate about why the forest service was out doing restoration work and timber harvests. today, that has shifted and more and more people understand that we need to do this restoration work so that the big shift is from why to a dialogue today about why the work needs to be done. we're getting more and more support to be able to do this restoration. we're seeing communities that are willing to financially participate in doing this work because they can the benefits

from these watersheds. they produce municipal water. they can see that by working with the forest service to do restoration work before we get a fire will help them to be able to keep healthy watersheds, continue to produce a clean, abundant flow of water that we depend on. host: u.s. forest service chief tom tidwell, thank you for coming in and talking with us today. guest: i appreciate your time. host: our weekly your money segment looking at the federal role in fighting fires. we will be back at 7:00 a.m. eastern tomorrow. the houses in at noon later today for morning hour. that is it for now. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> some live events to tell you about today on the c-span that works. live right now on c-span3, were covered from the international aids conference. right now, secretary of state hillary clinton has distorted her remarks. live coverage on c-span3. also, a look at latino voters, foreign-policy, and the 2012 election and that continues until 11:00 eastern. that is live on c-span2. join us later today for a speech by dianne feinstein, the california democrat, at the wilson cente